I was listening to an old episode of the Tim Ferriss Show. Naval Ravakant was the guest and mentioned at one point that sequels suck. He suggested that people are often incredibly brilliant with their first project in a field, but fail to repeat the success upon a second iteration.

The idea is that an artist spends their entire life — 20, 30 years — building up to their first major project. And they unleash everything in the process.

And within a handful of years, they’re expected to do the same. But such a thing is nearly impossible.

There are countless examples of this. It’s one of the reasons there are so many one-hit wonders in the music industry.

Bush had one of the greatest albums of the mid 90’s with Sixteen Stone. To this day it’s one of my favourite albums. Their follow-up, Razorblade Suitcase, didn’t hold a candle to the first.

However, as rare as it is, sequels do not always suck.

Nirvana’s 1991 album Nevermind shattered the paradigm of popular music. To this day it’s known as one of the most impactful albums of all time.

Nevermind was the band’s second album.

Music aside, I look towards movies.

The Dark Knight
Before Sunset
Aliens
The Empire Strikes Back

… It’s a subjective list, sure, and I could extend it. But I beg you to argue that these sequels aren’t better than their predecessor.

Terminator 2

I mean, T2 is arguably one of the best sci-fi movies of all time. Flawless? Of course not. But exponentially better than the original? Without a doubt.

Digression aside, sequels do mostly suck. For as many examples as I can provide as an argument to this, there are countless more flops.

Still, it’s important to shed this idea when giving a sequel a chance.

The subconscious is a powerful filter, and judging the second act with a bias towards failure might skew the opinion.

But equally important is to avoid repeating yourself. Unless you can continue the same story in a way that truly shines, tell a different one.

Pivot, change paths and tackle a fresh problem.

Build something new.